Providential Propers

The introductory note for today’s Mass for the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost in my Baronius Missal reads:

Christian people should attend to their temporal interests without exaggerated preoccupation, for such anxiety offends God who is our Father in heaven. We cannot serve two masters: the flesh and the spirit, at the same time. But let us serve the spirit given to us by the Holy Ghost, who makes us lean towards the supernatural life.

The Gradual (taken from Ps. 117:8-9) reads:

It is better to trust in the Lord than to confide in man. V. It is better to have confidence in the Lord than to rely on princes.

And, last but not least, the Gospel reading contained:

“Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on…”

These words are always meaningful, no matter what one’s particular circumstances might happen to be. Even so, I had to smile at the timing given the events of recent days.

Related Posts

Latest Comments

Ever mindfulAugust 30, 2015

A SUDDEN BLAZE OF LONG EXTINGUISHED HOPE

Transfiguration

For that one moment, ‘in and out of time’,
On that one mountain where all moments meet,
The daily veil that covers the sublime
In darkling glass fell dazzled at his feet.
There were no angels full of eyes and wings
Just living glory full of truth and grace.
The Love that dances at the heart of things
Shone out upon us from a human face
And to that light the light in us leaped up,
We felt it quicken somewhere deep within,

A sudden blaze of long-extinguished hope

Trembled and tingled through the tender skin.
Nor can this blackened sky, this darkened scar
Eclipse that glimpse of how things really are.

Louie, your words regarding today’s Mass were my exact thoughts. God speaks to us through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If we pray hard enough the visible head of the Church (the Pope) will once again be in conformity with the Invisible Head (Our Lord, Jesus Christ). Our Lord did not leave us abandoned. He gave us His Sacrifice and His Words to sustain us for all time. How else could we survive during these troubling times?

Dear Louie,
We have come to appreciate your passion and dedication over the past few years of reading your work, and had no problem believing you truly received a call from Our Lady to investigate the Documents of Vatican II, and to use your God-given abilities and skills for the good of His Church and all souls. But it’s easy to take a wrong turn in your conclusions, and then erroneouly assume that wrong turn is being further verified or confirmed and sanctioned by heaven, due to readings at Mass that seem to fit nicely, after experiencing swift and pleasant responses to your pleas for help- in the form of both financial (and verbal) support from fans.
The problem is, with the reach of the internet, you could have declared yourself an atheist or sodomite and easily gotten the same or greater amount of support/ response.
__
Your recent promotion of the idea (similarly stated in the SSPX video) that “informed” Catholics (which we all should be striving to be) have a moral obligation to avoid attending the N.O. because it is deemed by you and others as displeasing to God– falls right into step with Satan’s centuries old labors to get people to completely stop going to Mass on Sundays and Holydays –especially as so many millions have absolutely no access to a TLM as an alternative.
__
In your last video you reiterated your central desire to seek only truth, but then highly praise Father Campo’s latest contribution on the N.O., which presents a distortion of truth–the idea that the sacrificial nature of the Mass was purged from the N.O., leaving only the idea of a “meal” in peoples’ minds–thus harming their faith. In reality, “sacrifice” remains at the heart of the Mass prayers.
__
Father Campo objects strongly to the use of the terms “The Lord’s Supper” or “Supper of the Lord” in reference to the Liturgy, even exclaiming that it was never called that before the 1960’s.
___
But in the 1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent for parish priests -issued by order of Pope Pius V and published by his decree of that year- it states on page 255 (Tan Books reproduction):
“They should teach….the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes: One, that it might be the heavenly FOOD of our souls,…; and the other that the Church might have a perpetual SACRIFICE by which our sins might be expiated…..”
__
On page 215 of that same book, under “Meaning of the word Eucharist “–it is explained that ” freqently it is called SACRIFICE.. ” “The most ancient fathers, following the authority of the Apostle, have sometimes also called the Holy Eucharist by the name of “SUPPER”, because it was instituted by Christ the Lord at the salutary mystery of the Last Supper. ”
====
In the Council of Trent Documents themselves, – on the Eucharist ( Ch II ) Reason for the Institution of this most holy Sacrament it states :
“..Our Savior, ..commanded us in the participation of it to reverence His memory and to show forth his death until he comes[9] to judge the world. BUT HE WISHED THAT THIS SACRAMENT SHOULD BE RECEIVED AS THE SPIRITUAL FOOD OF SOULS…[10] WHEREBY THEY MAY BE NOURISHED AND STRENGTHENED, LIVING BY THE LIFE OF HIM..WHO SAID: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me,[11] and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins.”
====
Obviously the meal/supper idea is nothing novel. What was anathematized at Trent, was excluding the sacrificial or propitiatory aspects of the Eucharistic celebration. Honestly examining the prayers of the Novus Ordo shows it has not done that. And these are the reason we have always had such a strong understanding of the sacrificial nature of the Mass in these last 50 years, contrary to all these “claims” that it was missing:
Eucharitic prayer I :
“Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek. ”
__
“Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”
__
“…For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put and end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people.
“…… Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you IN SACRIFICE…”
“…..Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”
“… so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.”
“Father may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting covenant. ”
======
Louie, these prayers are part of anyone who listens and regularly attends the N.O.
And in addition to that, there is a prayer the Chuch asks her children to recite each day–called The Morning Offering– which has us uniting our prayers, works, joys and sufferings with “THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD”. We’ve been saying that daily for as long as we can remember.
It’s so much a part of our thinking, that when we hear the words Mass, or Eucharist or Lord’s supper–it is automatically the “Holy Sacrifice “.http://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/morning-offering.html

I.F.,
–
It is wonderful that you have kept the faith through the apostasy.
However, as you yourselves have mentioned previously (if my memory serves me well) you were catechized prior to Vatican II. In other words – you were passed on the faith intact through the “lex orandi, lex credendi” imparted through the Tridentine liturgy.
If you have kept the faith all these years, it has been through a special grace of God, not because of the NO.
Instead of providing snippets of quotes here and there, why don’t you provide a rebuttal of the “Ottaviani Intervention”?
That’d be PRETTY tough to do heh? 😉

Dear In Hoc,
Any time people keep the Faith-whether through a crisis in the Church or through the many crises we each face in this life– it is by the Graces of God that come to us all through the Church and Sacraments–especially the Holy Eucharist, as well as because the individuals made proper use of rational, free-will choices. This has been the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages.
__
We have never seen Louie deny that the Eucharist is fully provided in the N.O. Mass, and we have cited Pope Leo XIII and other similarly “unquestioned” Popes who have written extensively declaring the numerous ways that the Holy Eucharist itself-alone provides every possible Grace souls need in this life, and more. So we wonder why it is you think it necessary to declare the need or existence of some “special” other Grace that was necessary to preserve our Faith?
__
Shouldn’t you really be asking why not everyone caved to the revolutionary 1960’s culture?
__
We’ve personally observed regarding that, many active choices on the part of individuals (including many clergy, as Our Lady foretold numerous times) to insist that everyone they know join them in justifying and tolerating the ongoing presence of serious sin and dis-belief in society’s midst–two things we each consciously chose long ago not to accept, long before we first met and became a couple.
__
We also noticed we each had made habitual, the use of the Confessional — though years when the lines were long on Saturday afternoons, as well as when they dwindled to a few people, and back to now, when we find the situation varies depending on the parish, increasing where there more preaching against sin, and before First Saturdays–likely thanks in large part to Fr. Gruner’s efforts over so many years.
__
The TLM of our early days was made much more coherent for us, by the introduction of the vernacular, a[ before the N.O. it was said translated into English] and further enriched by many hymns we learned through the N.O. years, that we’ve passed on to our children and grandchildren, and which brought the Psalms and other Scriptures and Saints into our lives and memories more fully– a tremendous help in understanding the way the Church has always prayed and believed.. [We’ve rejected the erroneous protestant inclusions of course] Our current assessment that the TLM is far superior in richness of prayers and “built-in” reverence, was based on our re-introduction to it about a decade ago, when we disciplined ourselves to learn the meaning of its repeated Latin prayers, because we wanted to have a more active participation in it– like the N.O. provided, which we feel enriched our lives.
We regularly denounce detectable N.O abuses, including Communion in the hand, and were probably among the first protestors in the U.S. of things like altar girls–when they were first introduced (before being approved by the Vatican) So it’s not as if we see ever viewed the N.O. as an overall improvement or advocated it, as preferable to the TLM.
__
But Traditional Catholics in general need to be more honest about the advantages of having more readings from Scripture and the ability to celebrate Feast Days that have been added since the 1500’s, and most importantly, that it brings us the True Sacrifice and the Real Presence, and so is not something to be spurned, in favor of praying at home on Sundays, when there is no TLM available.
__
We’ve brought up the Ottaviani intervention you mentioned above– several time now, because Cardinal O himself apparently provided what you seem to imply would help satisfy you–his own words of satisfaction that Pope Paul VI responded to his intervention. What is your opinion of those? We have asked this a number of times but no one has yet given us an answer to the question– how is it honest for people (yourself included) to continue to mention his complaints, without addressing the fact that he later said they had been sufficiently satisfied by Paul VI, to eliminate all scandal? Obviously not all of them were addressed, but which of them did he consider fully covered by the changes the Pope made?
— On Aug. 26th, on Louie’s blog about the N.O. — we quoted a citation from a researcher on “Fish-eaters” of his letter :
“I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)”
— and also:
“The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors. . . .The purity and unity of the faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme magisterium of the Pope through the liturgical laws”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)”
— [The person posting posting these quotes at Fisheaters continues:
“So what is the Cardinal saying here?
1. That he rejoiced profoundly to see the Pope explain the new mass in such a way as to remove all possibility of genuine scandal.
2. He wished the Novus Ordo to receive a wide diffusion and success
3. The Novus ordo is a resplendent and legitimate addition to the existing variety of liturgical rites
4. The NO is a legitimate rite for the precise reason that the Pope is legitimate and he protects and guards the liturgy against error.
5. The Pope was and is executing his office of supreme teacher of the church in his diffusion of the New Mass.”
— Granted, there are those, like the SSPX, which tend to dismiss the Cardinal’s letter as a fabrication, but this was 9 years before he died.http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3424681.msg33159409#msg33159409
========
Do you have an answer to that? All we’ve gotten so far are side-stepping links to hours of writings on the N.O. by others authors, but nothing addressing these claimed facts about the man, himself and his retraction.
___
Can you tell us why these things not being made clear or even discussed, since he lived for nine years after the date of the letter stating his retractions, and was said to so fully concerned about these matters? Why is his intervention still being cited as you just did, as if he did not make that retraction which changes everything about it?
This side-stepping of the issue is what has given us the distinct impression that many self-professed “Traditional” Catholics are not really interested in the Truth about the N.O. That makes it doubly hard for honest people like us, to find answers to our questions, or to trust people like you, who claim to have everyone’s best interest at heart. So if you’re not one of those who are being dishonest, why is this retraction being so consistently ignored, do you think, while the intervention is still being cited as if nothing has changed?

I wonder if we can separate “The Eucharist” from “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”? I see these terms used interchangeably.
–
To me (old, catechized in the ’50s) The Eucharist is a new word – it may have been used in the official documents but it was not used in my family or my parish. To me, Eucharist means The Blessed Sacrament or Holy Communion. It is the FRUIT of the Sacrifice.
–
The Sacrifice is Jesus’ offering of His Body and Blood to The Father. This is an ACTION.
–
That is what I find confusing in what IF wrote. Mixed up in there is Eucharist, and Sacrifice. I will have to leave this to to others to sift through those quotes to find the subtle change in theology. Just reading those N.O. words gives me a bad feeling, though. Get out the 1962 Missal and read the words there – no question what is being talked about.

AkitaAugust 30, 2015

Thank You I.F. Along with Mundabor and St. Corbinians Bear I shall nail my foot to the floor in front of my favorite pew at the local NO parish for I have nowhere else to go. I will suffer the absurdities and circus atmosphere and “offer it up”. Paradoxically I shall receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of My Lord each time I attend.

Akita,
No that is not ok. Mass is not about YOU mass is about God. The new mass offends God. The new mass is offending God objectively. The new mass is a danger to your faith. To go there is a sin once you know. God and what he thinks is what matters. He is who matters not me me me.

Your view of the new mass is full of self love and is based on feelings not reason. The Saints did not act this way. The Saints did not say things like (I will just attend the spiritual abortion and I WILL JUST BE offering up all the suffering) THE SAINTS WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE ABORTION (NEW MASS)

The Saints would have at avoided the new mass for the danger to their faith. The Saints cared more about God than themselves. We should be like the Saints.

Dear In Hoc,
Is it really just about God?
“for God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.”
The Mass is not just about God. We are celebrating our redemption, in a re-presentation of the Sacrifice that puts us “there” witnessing the second chance He gave to the human race after our first parents lost Heaven for themselves and their posterity, and God Mercifully became our Savior and spiritual nourishment to see us home to heaven–if we but accept this great gift and do what is required in our lives.
The Mass is very much about man as well as God. We have become His children.

“The Mass is very much about man as well as God. We have become His children.”

The Church has always taught that there are four “PARTs” (handy mnemonic) to Mass: Petition, Adoration, Reparation, and Thanksgiving. I’ve never seen anything by any Father, Doctor, or even any prominent theologian prior to the sixties who suggested that the Mass includes a celebration, as such, of man’s redemption. One could certainly do so privately, interiorly, of course.

In Hoc Signo VincesAugust 31, 2015

I.F.,
–
All of what you mention goes without saying, but you misread the statement: nowhere does it state that the mass is JUST about God.
I think what piokolby was trying to say (or at least that goes for me) is that our main focus during the holy sacrifice of the mass needs to be God, not man. Hence, it does matter if Christ is offended and blasphemed during the celebration of the Eucharist, precisely because it is the highest form of worship of man to God. Our focus cannot be purely restricted to the reception of the eucharist (as the example of St Hermenegild demonstrates), to the exclusion of the offenses given to Christ during sacrilegiously celebrated Novus Ordo masses.

piokolbyAugust 31, 2015

All Novus Ordo masses are sacrilegiously celebrated.

salvemurSeptember 1, 2015

Agree with hoc that the Mass is not our little Catholic punch card. God Almighty through His indifectable Bride gives us a true Mass. It is satanic to ignore this out of a peer pressured weakness for mob rule. The true Mass with a true priest or no Mass – other than spiritually uniting with the Blood of Christ offered by the few true priests we have.

Dear Akita,
Amen. The All-Powerful God of the Universe – on our unworthy tongues- every time. And how could any of the Heavenly Hosts not be in attendance wherever He is present? Keep praying for all souls with us, under Our Lady’s protective mantle. God Bless you and yours.

“If you have a valid Mass you can attend to, you have a Mass obligation. If you only have clowns dancing on the sanctuary and earthen vessels and strange “consecration” formulae and all that, well the doubt is more than justified, and I gather there were not a few of these masses in the worst phase of the “Springtime”. But do not come on this blog and tell me that you know Christ is there in the miracle of Transubstantiation, but you are too fine a Catholic palate to drink of His blood.

This issue cannot be escaped. If the Church is the Church, and the Consecration is valid, and the Transubstantiation takes place we do not refuse – or condemn – what is given to us. If we do, this means that we say that the Church is not the Church, or the Transubstantiation does not take place, or it takes place but it’s not good enough for us; because we want miracles made our own way, thank you very much.

Let others argue about this as much as they please. Let other pewsitters allow their pride to have the better of themselves, and their desire for purity to lead them to the rejection of what their Mother gives them. I live in a very simple world, a world in which my sensus catholicusnot only rebels, but recoils shivering from the very idea that a layman would know that the Body and Blood of Our Saviour are dished to him, and answers: “no thanks, I think something very wrong is going on here. Actually, my mother is trying to poison me”.

I want to die doing what the Church tells me to do whenever this is not in contrast with what the Church always told us to do. Mass obligation is a precept of the Church. The Mass is valid. The Consecration takes place. Case closed.

But what about love? Should there not be an overarching principle at work here?

The reasoning seems strange to me. Christ comes to me in the form of the Blessed Sacrament and I should, out of love, refuse to even witness this greatest of miracles of love? Which of God’s gifts should I ever refuse out of … love for Him? What does God say to the well-instructed Catholic: “Here is my body, please stay away from it?”

I allow myself to offer another example of love. Think of the old woman who came home from the new Mass at the end of the Sixties and cried tears of sorrow, but still went to Mass. She knew how to show her love.

We suffer and we obey. We give our suffering to the Lord. If we think the Mass is so horrible that Christ does not come in the form of a valid consecration, we avoid that Mass. If He is there, we want Him to find us! Crying if needs be, but there!

We find the most reverent mass we can. If we are lucky, we might have a TLM (Yes, SSPX too! What a blessing!). But if not, we think of the old woman above, and we love Christ exactly as she did. ”

dear salvemur,
We’d go beyond even that. We’d say – when one thinks that Catholic children are actually raised in a milieu where they observe that it’s normative to bash one who’s nonetheless held as reigning pontiff, now that’s horrifying.

“I want to die doing what the Church tells me to do whenever this is not in contrast with what the Church always told us to do. Mass obligation is a precept of the Church. The Mass is valid. The Consecration takes place. Case closed”

The Church already told us what to do with full authority of the dogmatic Council of Trent and the Papal Bull of Pope St. Pius V (Quo Primum). A church is there to serve the Divine Law which is sanctify the Lord’s Day. How can a sacrilegious Mass help you to sanctify the Lord’s Day?

Are NO sacraments invalid through a lack of the correct intention on the part of the minister (which IS required for the validity of the sacraments)?
This provides some answers to that question:
“There can be no doubt as to the necessity of the correct intention for the valid reception of the sacraments. This is explicitly declared by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, when it states that the ministers of the Sacraments:
–
…validly perform and confer the Sacraments, provided they make use of the matter and form always observed in the Catholic Church according to the institution of Christ, and provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration (p. 155).
–
The Baltimore Catechism explains what the expression “intending to do what the Church does” really means, namely:
‘the intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends when it administers the Sacrament.’
…
Since none of us can read the innermost intentions of a minister’s heart how, then, does any one of us know whether or not the sacraments we have received were valid. In effect, Saint Robert Bellarmine points out that we can never have a certitude of Faith concerning the reception of a true sacrament, since no-one can see the intention of another. However, in truth we can never have such a certitude concerning human events. The greatest certitude that we can have is a moral certitude, which is also the certitude that we can have about any contingent, singular reality.
–
However, it is perfectly possible to have a moral certitude. In the traditional rites of the sacraments and of Mass the guarantee of this moral certitude is contained in the rites themselves. For the traditional rites for Mass and the sacraments express the intentions of the Church in a very explicit manner, leaving no room for doubt whatsoever. The same is not the case for the new rites, framed explicitly to be ambiguous, and to be just as compatible with a Protestant intention as with a Catholic one. Since they do not express the intention of doing what the Church does, the intention of the priest cannot be explicitly known. Consequently there is always a doubt as to the intention of the priest in the celebration of the New Mass and sacraments, which does not in any way exist in the traditional rite. The only way to have moral certitude of valid sacraments is to assist at the traditional rite of Mass. Although theoretically it would be possible for a priest to celebrate sacrilegiously in the traditional rite by having a positive counter intention, it is hardly likely, given that the correct intention is repeated several times, which is not the case in the new rite. To the contrary, it is very likely that a Novus Ordo priest celebrate invalidly through lack of intention, since the full and correct intention is not included in the texts of the New Mass.
–
Note that the Faith is not required for an adequate intention, and that heretics can confer the sacraments validly, provided that they have the intention of doing what the Church does, even though they might not know what that is. This was clear from the third century, when Pope St. Stephen I condemned St. Cyprian’s contention that the baptism of the heretical Novatians had to be repeated. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]”

Should we ALWAYS receive Holy Communion at the hands of heretics, as Mundabor and other like minded people suggest?
The Church, through the example of St Hermenegild answers: NO.
From the Pentecost sermon by Bishop of Tissier de Mallerais:
–
“I spoke this morning to the children about Saint Hermenegild. He was a young martyr, seventeen years old, who lived in the sixth century. He was Catholic, but his father was a heretic, an Arian. He was supposed to inherit the throne of Spain, but his father, furious that his son was a Catholic, forbade him the throne and sentenced him to prison. Hermenegild – whom we celebrate on April 13th (a month ago) was in prison for several months as Easter approached. He wanted to receive Communion, Holy Communion for Easter. His father was thinking the same thing and sent him a bishop carrying Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament! What
a joy for Hermenegild to be able to make his Easter communion! Except that when the bishop entered the prison cell, he presented himself thus: “I am the Bishop of Huesca, I am an Arian and I bring you Holy Communion!” “I am Arian,” that is to say “I am a heretic, I’m not Catholic.”
–
It was a bishop who was not Catholic, dear faithful, who brought Holy Communion to Hermenegild. What did Hermenegild do? What would you have done in his place? Would you still have accepted to receive Holy Communion? In order to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, is it not worth making some compromises, receiving even from unworthy hands the Lord Jesus? This bishop celebrated Mass validly though he did not believe that Jesus is God, because that was the Arian religion. He did not even believe that Jesus was God! But we do think he could validly celebrate Mass and he was bringing Jesus in the Eucharist!
–
Well, in the twinkling of an eye, inspired by one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost – whom we are celebrating today − the gift of Counsel, he said: “No. I will not receive communion from your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You, my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you’re not Catholic! And I will not receive Holy Communion from sacrilegious hands!”
–
What an example for us, my dear faithful! All the beautiful gifts coming from Rome, we are not prepared to accept them without examination, without considering the circumstances in which this gift would be made. We demand to be able to maintain our public and entire profession of the Catholic Faith. We cannot receive poisoned gifts that would condemn us to compromise with Modernism. This is the example of Saint Hermenegild, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/f59539becb9104d014dd076c4e93ebbd-111.html

Dear Hoc,
Please explain it to me, because I truly cannot understand. You are academic, articulate and sincere. To my mind, both your comments are excellent and 100% Catholic. Both originate from SSPX Priests.
Now I think we agree that Bergoglio is a heretic. Bp. Fellay designated him a modernist. Abp. Lefebvre said the NO church is not Catholic. We have numerous Saints, Popes, Theologians and canons confirming automatic loss of office and excommunication of heretics.
Bp. de Mallerais teaches that this young Saint was inspired by the Holy Ghost when he exclaimed: “No. I will not receive communion from your sacrilegious hands! As for me, I am in chains but I am free to work my salvation. You, my lord, are free but you are a slave of the devil because you have a false faith, you’re not Catholic! ”
Yet, despite the above and very much more, the SSPX recognizes heretic Bergoglio as true Pope, worships God by offering the sacrifice of the Mass in union with him, craves recognition and jurisdiction from him and union with his non-Catholic, NO church.
To my mind this is religious schizophrenia. I see zero logic in it. Now Catholicism has vanished. On the one hand I see Catholicism, on the other disorientation. Saint Hermenegild refused the Blessed Eucharist from the sacrilegious hand of a heretic; Bp. Fellay wishes to offer that same Blessed Eucharist to God holding the hand of a heretic. Please explain. I truly do not understand. I’m not trying to be contentious – I genuinely do not understand how the SSPX thinks.

It is irreligious intellectual dishonesty. But then most folks are hell-bent on the fantasy that the New Order and the Catholic Faith are the same thing. Like saying a poisonous puddle and a pristine lake are the same thing because they a both liquid and God permits one to exist.

So, what do you propose that the Society do? Declare its own Pope and decry Pope Francis as anti-pope? Believe me, I am BEYOND disgusted with the actions of the Holy Father but what else do you possibly expect the Society to do? Mind you, I’m not a parishioner of the SSPX but I sympathize wholeheartedly with them. Modernist as Francis is, he is not a “formal” heretic following the theological definition, as such he is still–distasteful as it is–still pope. From my vantage point, the only thing the SSPX is trying to do is reclaim the rights long unjustly denied it by the institutional Church. If they continue being denied, well, the SSPX is still blameless and the sin is on the institutional Church, read: the humans making up the hierarchy. This quasi-sedevacantist talk is totally pointless.

Dear Ocalatrad, Most likely Pope Francis is a formal heretic (and therefore, not Catholic, nor pope in the supernatural forum). However, as he has not declared himself such, explicitly, we must await the finding by the competent authority, on all the evidence. Such finding would necessarily refer to a finding of formal heresy on the basis of past acts. I believe, at this stage, that there has been unnecessary and scandalous delay in warning/calling out PF on various material heresies and demanding that he repent and retract them, (retract them, explaining he never intended to state them (highly unlikely)) or be declared a formal heretic.

Dear Lynda,
How many quotes would you like stating that canonical trial and declaration are not necessary for loss of office?
But we are getting off the point. My question to Hoc was for him, or anybody else, to explain the SSPX position to me simply, clearly and unambiguously, in terms of Catholic doctrine.

de Maria numquam satisSeptember 1, 2015

It’s simply a reality that many SSPX priests are actually non-una cum. One must ask ahead of time if one wants to be sure.

Archbishop Lefebvre maintained at the time of the imposition of the NOM that “it leads slowly to heresy”. He also stated at that time that the number of invalid Masses was on the rise because young priests trained to think of the Mass as “a Memorial” have an intention that is more and more determined by that concept, which was completely different from what was defined at Trent. This was the case even without their being aware of the opposition because they are “under the influence of a revolutionist and modernist conception” of dogma. And in 1975, he added that the New Mass “is ambivalent and ambiguous because one priest can say it with a totally Catholic a Faith in the sacrifice, etc., and another can say it with another intention, because the words he pronounces and the gestures he makes no longer contradict [other intentions]”.

Excellently put.
The problem with the novus ordo is precisely that – ambiguity. The ambiguity is ingrained in the very rites, so that one can either take it as protestant or catholic depending on one’s own whims. And because of the lack of precision in the rites, like the good Archbishop said, the novus ordo slowly but surely leads towards heresy and Protestantism.

Yes, as Archbishop Lefebvre and others have explained, it is the contrived radical rupture with what had been handed down in Tradition, the essentials that are omitted or obscured, so that it admits of an heretical, Protestant interpretation. That nutshell that you quoted from Tradicat really got to the reason that the NOM per se is objectively defective.

Indignus famulus: thanks for your contributions. But if you re-read my article carefully, I have NOT stated that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has no relation whatsoever to the Lord’s Supper. The Eucharistic Sacrifice was instituted AT the Lord’s Supper after all… But the Eucharistic Sacrifice is NOT the same thing AS the Lord’s Supper! Which is what #27 of the General Instruction of the Paul VI Roman Missal claims: “At Mass OR Lord’s Supper…” In other words, the Novus Ordo induces us to believe that Mass and Lord’s Supper are interchangeable expressions for the same reality: Well, sorry, but that’s NOT a Catholic conception of the Mass. So you see, I merely stated—and stand by it—the the Catholic conception of the Mass is NOT the Lord’s Supper, that is, the Mass and the Lord’s Supper are NOT one and the same thing. Furthermore, the Mass is most certainly NOT a memorial of the Lord’s Supper, but rather a memorial of the Lord’s Paschal Sacrifice. That He wanted to institute the Eucharist as the Sacrament of His Sacrifice is purely for our sake: He need not have instituted the Eucharist as our redeeming food. It’s His Sacrifice on the Cross that redeems us. The Eucharistic food is, shall we say, “secondary,” if you take my meaning correctly.

You hit on a very important point. The reason why I like to link to Fr. Cekada’s videos is that it demonstrates that objective facts and subjective opinions can be separated. And objective facts can stand on their own, as they do in the Work of Human Hands videos.

I think, as I have said before, that Father Cekada’s book “Work of Human Hands” is a must read for all Catholics. I have purchased 12 copies, if not more, and have handed them out to close friends and those who were interested in understanding the roots and development of the NO. It is a well document book and a fascinating read. It was such a further eye opener for me. He has numerouse quotes and references backing what he says. This I valued very much.

I would like to know what Father Cekada’s ‘take’ on Fatima is. Never heard of it.

Dear Father Campo,
Our comment took in your objection to the use of the terminology and was not meant to claim you thought there was no connection. Looking at what you wrote above, it seems there is a serious confusion of terms going on.
__
It is our understanding that the terms “The Lord’s Supper” or “Supper of the Lord” — often used by the Church these days to designate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass–, (as is also the term “Eucharistic celebration”) are not at all interchangeable with “The Last Supper” –an event which took place only once, and at which the Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Our Lord. Is it that you are referring to That LAST Supper, as “The Lord’s Supper”, which would explain why we are not communicating well on this matter at present, and possibly why you are objecting to the usage of the phrase Lord’s Supper to designate the Mass?
If this is the problem, then it does serve to demonstrate the difficulties of using such new terms that are so confusing, –one of the things we hope Cardinal Sara’s current project will be able to begin to rectify.
__
You and others make statements about what the average person understands regarding the Mass, which contradict our own experience and that of many others we have known over the years of attending N.O. Masses, who seem well aware of the meaning as Sacrifice, as well as of the importance of the Sacred food. We believe there is confusion generated by the many ambiguities that could and should be addressed, but that the greater culprit is the lack of proper catechesis and/or catechesis that is tainted by modernism today. No one should be expected to understand the Mass based solely on the terms they hear, without being educated in its meaning.
You claim the sacrifice is downplayed, but the words of those prayers that remain, make a great impact on those who pray the Mass with genuine attention. We heard the offertory prayers you referred to are currently being considered for restoration, and hope they will be.
__
We do not object to the legitimate criticism of things related to the Mass which cause confusion of understanding. We simply wish people would stop relegating it to the trashbin, while it is the only Mass available to so many Catholics.
__
We believe the greater sources of potential harm to the Faith are false ecumenism, (scandals which continue to lead to indifferentism), and the currently suggested communion for adulterers, which promotes grave sacrilege and insult to the Real Presence in the Eucharist–in addition to damaging the teachings on Marriage and Confession–all things which also hit the heart of the Church. It seems to us the correlation between the N.O. and loss of Faith- including openness to Protestant ideas, are highly speculative and exaggerated, while these other factors are directly observable and often known to the persons affected which they freely acknowledge in conversation. So why not use the criticisms of the N.O. to help the Church make it better? The answer seems to be a greater desire to eliminate it, on the part of those who appreciate the TLM and are unwilling to accept it as in any way being willed by God for His Church.

And Indignus famulus: Yes indeed, the sacrificial prayers have not been totally taken out of the Novus Ordo Missæ (God’s providence saw to that!) But they are, shall we say, played down. Certainly they’re completely taken out of the Offertory Prayers. And in the mind of ordinary Catholics, what with the “altar” turned into a “table” facing the people, in an everyday language, etc., not many Catholics would say that the NO Mass they attend regularly is the re-presentation of the same Sacrifice of Calvary before their eyes. In fact, in NO language, no one says the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass anymore. It’s called “The Eucharist,” which is not incorrect, but it’s misleading, because it takes out the essence of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice.

Dear Fr. Campo,
Also, do you know the source of the claim regarding “table vs. altar”? Going to the Vatican website for the GIRM, we found listed 27 uses of “ table”, 17 of which referred to “credence table” and “More than 100 matches” when searching for “ altar”. Yet we continually see statements like the one you used, “what with the ‘altar’ turned into a ‘table’”. God bless you.

“The proposition of the Church is also necessary, since otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish what should be believed from what should not be believed. One of the essential roles of the Church is to propose infallibly the truths which are contained in divine revelation. Protestants deny this authority of the Church, and we are not surprised to see their religion to have devolved into a dogmatic chaos since, precisely, no one really knows what God has revealed, and what He has not. We therefore understand that the act of faith proceeds from a supernatural virtue, infused by God, and that the act itself is the result of a divine movement. The object of faith. The next question is: What is the object of faith? What do we give our assent to? The answer is that the object of faith is the dogmas of the Catholic Church. These are truths revealed by God and proposed by the Church as having been revealed by God. They therefore meet the standards of the virtue of faith, and the intellect, under the influence of the grace of God, assents to them. The motive of faith. What moves our mind to assent, especially to mysteries which we do not fully understand, and which are above reason? The answer is that the authority of God revealing is what moves the intellect to assent, and not some rational evidence, which is the motive of our natural convictions. In other words, we hold the dogmas to be true because God has revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Immutable truth. Because God never changes, indeed cannot change, it follows that the dogmas of the Catholic Church areimmutable truths, that is, are incapable of being changed. We assent to them as they are immutable, that is, with full knowledge of their immutability. This inability to be changed is a necessary quality of these divine truths, and consequently a necessary quality of our assent to them. In other words, we assent to necessarily immutable truths. If we fail in this regard, we do not have supernatural faith. By analogy, a marriage is by nature indissoluble. If the marrying parties do not consent to an indissoluble marriage, there is no marriage at all.”
…http://inveritateblog.com/2015/08/28/against-mentevacantism/

Dear Fr Campo, Could you (or anyone else) answer me this definitively?: Is it possible for transubstantiation to take place at a “satanic mass”? Is it possible for Our Lord to be made present – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – at such an unspeakably evil event? Lord, have mercy! Lord, have mercy! Lord, have mercy!

A million dollar question is: Is the NO consecration of the Eucharist valid?
Yes, or no?
To answer this question, a lot of background material has first to be considered:
Was Montini a heretic? Was Montini a member of the Catholic Church?
Was Montini a pope formaliter?
If the answers be “yes” and twice “no”, then our question is answered. A non-Catholic layman cannot concoct a new mass, promulgate a new mass, or validly alter the sacramental forms of Catholic sacraments. Q.E.D.
Are the NO sacramental forms of Episcopal Consecration and Priestly Ordination valid?
If the answer be “no”, then we again have our answer. A layman can not confect a sacrament wherein bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Q.E.D.
Now the Eucharistic consecration itself: The form of the Sacrament, fixed by Pope Pius XII, was changed by Montini. Is the new sacramental form valid?
If the answer be “no”, we once again have our answer. Q.E.D.

Dear ocaltrad,
I really hope we can eventually find something we can agree upon.
Fr. Hesse was an eccentric charlatan, no doubt an authority on viticulture. I am amazed that so many follow his every word. Take any talk he has ever given, write it down and examine it closely. You will see what I mean.

Dear Mr Lamb, We are brother and sister in Christ. Are you aware of any significant error in what Fr Hesse has taught? If so, please let us know. I have not read any of his works, just listened to some hours of talks on various doctrinal matters. Please don’t make comments about Fr Hesse’s character unless they are good. One ought not do that, particularly about the dead. His appreciation of wine, or any moral weakness he may have had is not relevant to the doctrine and canon law of the Church that he has expounded. Only the substance of what he taught is relevant. Let us please keep to the issues only. God bless you.

Well, I can’t disagree with you about his eccentricity or knowledge of wine, so there we have it!

I’m alluding to his citations of pre-conciliar texts and his crystal clear theological argumentation. It is really quite easy to follow. A big one is his assertion that the NO is schismatic in that it violates the injunction in Pius V’s “Quo Primum” that the Mass is not to be changed by “whosoever” of the pastors, the Pope included. The Mass was erected as an “insurmountable bulwark” against heresy as stated elsewhere.

Now, Fr. Hesse and the Society rightfully do not deny the validity of the NO Eucharist. However, the texts of the NO rite are very clearly heretical and thereby pose a danger to the faith. The faithful have a right to hear Mass in their own rite, the Latin Rite, and a right not to have heresy preached to and inculcated in them by errant pastors. In virtue of Quo Primum, the NO rite is NOT the Latin Rite, call it what one will. Insofar as the Church, or the pastors of the Church, fail to fulfill their end of responsibility to provide the Latin Rite, they are derelict in their duty.

IF: Stop pretending. You are a NO partisan!
–
Your whole questioning of the wisdom of Mr. V’s position is the DEVIL’s argument made by obfuscation and confusion.
–
The Council of Trent Fathers considered the Eucharist as having a supper component as well as a sacrifice component because at the end of the sacrifice THE PRIEST CONSUMES THE VICTIM just like in the Old Testament Temple Sacrifice! What do you think the Old Testament priests did with the sacrificed animals, throw them away? They CONSUMED them! The Priest in the Mass confects the eucharist and it becomes the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and then he consumes the victim.
–
The problem with the protestant service is that the protestants consider it only a MEMORIAL of Our Lord’s sacrifice. The sacrifice is not represented in the present time, and the victim does not become present in the eucharistic species, i.e., the species do not become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord. In other words, the protestants do a meal to memorialize the sacrifice of Our Lord, the meal is devoid of a sacrificial element in the present time and hence it is impossible to consume the victim.
–
So when traditional catholics mention that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has a meal component, it is because the Victim, Our Lord, is consumed by at least the priest. The protestants ONLT have a meal component, and no preparatory sacrifice, hence it is impossible for the them to consume the Victim, Our Lord.
–
As a result, the protestants are the unwitting spiritual descendants of those who walked away during Our Lord’s bread of life discourse because what Our Lord was preaching was a hard saying!
–
What does this have to do with the NO? The sacrifice element has been dialed way down and the communal meal aspect has been dialed way up. The Altar, which emphasizes the necessary preliminary sacrificial element has been replaced by a table! Over time, people exposed to the NO forget that the sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary is being represented by the Priest on the Altar (Oh, that’s right, the Altar isn’t even there!) and they become susceptible to the protestant heresies regarding the nature of the eucharist.

Dear IF,
As always thank you for your well researched and well measured comments…
Should you ever have taken on another pseudonym, then Nathanael would have been apt indeed…
Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!”

Cyprian, I like your explanation. I too see a blurring of distinction between meal and sacrifice. We call Jesus the Lamb of God, and He exhorted His listeners that they must eat His flesh, lamb was eaten by the Hebrews while the angels swept over Egypt, and sacrifice/eating is a main theme of the whole Bible. As you said it’s all about sacrifice, and eating the fruits of that sacrifice.
–
What those attending the N.O. believe is the result of what they have heard for the past four decades – it shows. The fact that those like IF have survived with their Faith intact is simply the grace of God, in spite of their attendance at the N.O. not because of it.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. IF,
The very topic you have raised suggests the NO Mass permits subjective belief of parishioners to separate the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Lord’s Supper. This permission is the very essence of modern Catholicism to pick and choose what and how parishioners (and clerics too!) wish to believe when participating in the NO Mass.

However, regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass and Lord’s Supper, I propose we abide by Our Lord’s dictum:
“What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Dear Alarico,
It seems to us you took something from our comment which was not in it. We were discussing Fr. Campo’s objections to calling the Mass the Lord’s supper, not suggesting the two are distinct.
Hope this helps.

Dear Fr. Campo,
Do we laity offer the sacrifice of the mass through Jesus Christ — as the NO Mass proposes—, or does Christ ever and always, once and forever, offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass? And if the latter, how should we grasp our participation in it?

The laity join themselves spiritually to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is made by the priest and him alone as alter Christus. A layperson offering himself in propitiatory sacrifice is blasphemous in that only by the blood of the Lamb, viz. Christ, can we be saved and are redeemed. Once again the NO very blatantly and demagogically conflates two concepts to not offend protestants, give the pretense of orthodoxy and ultimately go wrong on Catholic theology.

Well, that’s not quite all. St. Paul tells us that we can make up for what is “lacking” in Christ’s sacrifice (and this takes careful thought and reading of traditional material on the subject)…meaning that we CAN join our sufferings with His and offer ours and His to The Father. So at Mass we offer for the four aims: one of which is Propitiation.

Thank you. I should have specified that we alone cannot offer the sacrifice. The sacrifice offered by the priest is IT and we can join ourselves to it, but ultimately the sacrifice of Our Lord is what saves us.

ATTENTION: After some private conversation with Peter Lamb, he has decided to move on. I realize that some of you had formed a relationship with him and may wish to stay in touch. If that be the case, shoot me an email, and I’ll attempt to help you reconnect.
.
At this I’ll reiterate what I’ve said many times for the benefit of new readers:
.
There’s next to no “policing” of comments here. I ask one thing – don’t hijack the comment section with you pet topic.
.
You’re entirely free to have any discussion you’d like on this site (e.g., the sedevacante debate) *on the FORUM.* You’re also free to link to those FORUM threads in the combox of any given post whenever you’d like to invite others to join in there. (If they don’t show up, take it as a sign that they’re not interested.)
.
No one, however, is free to simply ignore this most reasonable request and to use the comment area here as their own private space to trumpet a pet topic. It gets tiresome and makes new commenters (who may not be interested in that pet topic, but do have something to offer specific to the matter addressed in the post) less likely to join in.
.
Of course tangential things will come up often, but I am certain that everyone here knows exactly what I’m talking about.
.
Thanks again to all. I appreciate each and every one of you. Carry on!

S.Armaticus,
The Michael Matt video is unprincipled hippie pseudo trad nonsense. This kumbaya trash between the FSSP and SSPX is an illusion. They are not the same. They do not agree on doctrine and principle. The SSPX right the FSSP is wrong. That is an objective fact.

I am glad Mr. Matt and three FSSP Priests got all warn and fuzzy at a screening of the Archbishop Lefebvre documentary that does not change the reality of the FSSP Constitutions, the Ecclesia Dei document, John Paul II, Motu Proprio, 2 July 1988. and the statement from the Superior General of the Fraternity of St. Peter, Fr. Bisig in 2000 about the new mass and Holy Thursday then what followed as all known and are all unacceptable.

These are not just “old talking points” as Mr. Matt suggests. These documents still stand and the FSSP has not moved one inch on it’s errors.

The SSPX stands for: 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre

The FSSP stands for: Fssp constitutions, the Ecclesia Dei document, John Paul II, Motu Proprio, 2 July 1988 (which contains lies about the Archbishop and a stunning admission by John Paul II that Vatican II contains “new” doctrine and a heretical notion of Tradition) and the FSSP accepts this document and they are in fact bound to it in their constitution which says
c) Aim of the Fraternity
” 8. The particular aim of the Fraternity of Saint Peter is to achieve this objective through the faithful observance of the “liturgical and spiritual traditions” according to the dispositions of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, which is at the origin of its foundation.”

No matter what the FSSP supporters say they are bound “according to the dispositions of the Motu proprio” Shame on the FSSP!

Michael Matt is deceiving people with his video. The official stand of the SSPX is still the 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre. That means these are not “old talking points” these are facts that establish a reality between the FSSP and the SSPX. Michael Matt come back to reality.

This is almost as tedious and fruitless as the sedevacantist rant. Your language and judgement need some work.
–
You and your ilk should be ignored in the hope you will stop but I can’t allow this kind of slander of the FSSP to go un challenged. Think about what you are saying! Michael Matt points out in his excellent video how damaging this kind of thing is to all of us.
–
You don’t believe this but we are all on the same page. One of Satan’s main weapons is to get US to destroy ourselves.

Dear S Armaticus, the blessings of God on your blog and work for Our Lord and His Holy Church. Yes, Mr Matt’s appeal is prudent and for the good of the Faith and the Faithful. He does not compromise on the immutable truth of Faith and morals while seeking ways to work together for the good, in the evil situation that prevails. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .

Thank you Lynda for your kind words.
.
What I would just like to point out is that I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is hard at work trying to “restore all things in Christ”.
.
What I find interesting in the Michael Matt videos is that he can transcend “specific disagreements” that are critical to our faith and need to be resolved, yet he does not allow these “specific disagreements” to distract from the bigger issues.
.
Now, these bigger issues can be framed as “doctrinal/canonical disagreements” which separate the Faithful or they can be seen as “an excersize in evangelization” that point out where the problems are which need to be resolved.
.
The above is not meant as a pseudo-modernist “why can’t we all get along” exercize or a case of “give and take to smooth over the sticking points”. Doctrine can not change and even Francis say this all the time now. What is at the base of that which I write above is a strong personal belief in the inevitability that “objective truth” will prevail. In other words, objective truth will always prevail where we find disagreements between men of good will. And I ascribe good will to the FSSP, even though the Ecclesia Dei Commission’s mission is to destabilize the SSPX.
.
To prove my point, think about this chronological sequence of events.
1) 1970- Archbishop Lefebvre forms the SSPX. Only valid and licit TLM masses offered for many years.
2) 1984 – JPII allows for the indult mass.
Coincidence or causality?
3) 1988 – Archbishop consecrates four bishops after Vatican would not give him a fixed consecration date.
4) 1988 – On account of the above, Ecclesia Dei Commission is formed to split the SSPX.
Causality without any doubt!
Result, the TLM mass begins to be offered ” more widely” to Faithful in post-conciliar Rome churchs.
5) 2007 – The spread of TLM in post-conciliar Rome churchs leads to Summmorum Pontificum.
Now the diocesan priests begin to offer TLM.
Religious communities (the largest is FFI) begin to retun to the 1962 Roman Missal and Breviary.
6) 2012/2013 – Modernists see threat of spread of TLM, overtly suppress FFI.
FFI suppression creates a cause celebre for Faithful and massive “optics” problem for Modernists.
7) 2015 – Modernist call in “formation directors” in attempt to stem the spread of TLM amongst seminarians.
Francis openly criticisizing Faithful Catholics and priests on a regular basis.
8) 2014 – Catholic bishops revolt at Synod of Bishops.
9) Civil war erupts inside Vatican caused by violent speech to Curia at Christmas message of Francis.
10) Francis sends faithful Bishops (Schneider, Brandmuller) to visit SSPX seminaries.
10) Francis creates “parallel curia” to counteract Roman Curia.
11) Francis issues permission for N.O. Faithful to obtain absolution from SSPX priests, on basis of what faithful bishops reported.
12) Permission given through unofficial means (letter to bishop), not through official document that would need to be cleared with CDF.
.
This is the present state of play.
.
Qiuck question: Given the above sequence of events, how are the Modernists left after all the scheming and machinations?
.
And I think it is in this context that we need to view the Michael Matt video.

The Voice of Christ
MY CHILD, do not take it to heart if some people think badly of you and say unpleasant things about you. You ought to think worse things of yourself and to believe that no one is weaker than yourself.

Moreover, if you walk in the spirit you will pay little heed to fleeting words. It is no small prudence to remain silent in evil times, to turn inwardly to Me, and not to be disturbed by human opinions. Do not let your peace depend on the words of men.

Their thinking well or badly of you does not make you different from what you are. Where are true peace and glory? Are they not in Me? He who neither cares to please men nor fears to displease them will enjoy great peace, for all unrest and distraction of the senses arise out of disorderly love and vain fear.

Thank you, as always, for your edifying and consolatory quotations and advices! We are brothers and sisters in Christ, traumatised by the Apostasy and the abandonment by our spiritual fathers, trying desperately to keep the Faith in an ever more hostile and persecuting world. I think especially of those Faithful who are standing up under their own names, for God, Faith and morals against terrible evils in the public square, who are known and being persecuted, whilst their bishops and priests fail to support them, even throw them to the wolves. I am praying for you, for your shining example and encouragement and admonition to us all. Our Lord has a special place of recognition for those who suffer publicly for Him, because they put their love for God before their own comfort and wellbeing.

Alarico: I am not aware that the officially-published NO liturgical books formally sustain that the laity actually offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, as some sort of concelebration with the priest. True, that has been a common pastoral practice, but that’s an abuse. ONLY the validly ordained priest can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone else, including other priests who are merely assisting in choir (i.e. or not concelebrating in the NO), associate themselves with the celebrating priest.

1) Was changing the Mass into vernacular , in itself, condemned. Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says … that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema.” Does the word “only” save them here?
2) In the offertory of the New Mass the priest says the same words as those which are used in the Jewish sater service. These are the words: “Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink.” In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine , in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine. ?????

Indignus – why so defensive?
.
“Your recent promotion of the idea (similarly stated in the SSPX video) that ‘informed’ Catholics (which we all should be striving to be) have a moral obligation to avoid attending the N.O. because it is deemed by you and others as displeasing to God … You and others make statements about what the average person understands regarding the Mass…”
.
It would almost seem as if you didn’t actually read the posts to which you’re responding.
.
I never decreed that anyone needs to behave according to what I have deemed in this matter. On the contrary, I made it clear that there is an aspect to this highly unusual matter that concerns, not only knowledge, but conscience, and my purpose in these posts is not to counsel any individual person on how they should behave.
.
The SSPX video qualified the necessity of avoidance with “as they understand it as an offense against God,” which also tends toward recognizing the role of knowledge and conscience.
.
In other words, you’re defending yourself against subjective judgments that were never actually made.
.
WRT striving for being informed… I offered any number of reasons why I believe that the new Mass might rightly be considered, objectively speaking, offensive to God (which has exactly nothing to do with our experiences therein.) If you wish to make an argument against those reasons, at least then you’d be addressing what the posts in question actually state.

Louie,
Indignus still attends the new mass and defends it. I think his defensive guilty conscience lashes out at Catholics here. I have seen this both on line and in the real world. Guilty consciences seek to justify themselves………Think CMTV, Father Paul Nicholson and the FSSP. They are defensive & attack for a reason.

Hey Indignus give up the new mass and Vatican II. Come to Tradition. Trust God he will take care of you.

piokolby,
I don’t think you will ever be able to persuade the good souls of Indignus, Voris, Fr. Nicholson and company to your side unless you can convince them that you are more pious than they are. It seems to be an issue of piety. I suppose the knowledgeable defenders of the NO tolerate it much more than they defend it for the sake of piety. The piety I refer to is obedience to the Holy See, to the Pope and even more so to the Office of the Papacy. Everything hinges on the Papacy.
This is the proverbial Gordian knot you must untie.
Who amongst us can declare unequivocally, I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first?

poikolby, you really cross the line at times, and this comment does just that. Who the heck are you to speak thus to your fellow Catholics who seem to have much more charity in their hearts than you do?
–
To lump IF into the same camp as Voris, Nicholson, et al is true injustice, and shows a real lack of understanding of the issues being discussed.
–
I would hope your conscience would convict you of some guilt. Someone has to call you out on this issue – stop accusing others of sin, and stop the rudeness!

Barbara,
I do not care what you think of my heart. I care what Our Lord thinks of my heart. I care what Our Lord thinks of the new mass. I care about the souls that are trapped in the novus ordo. The new mass is evil and when confused lazy souls hear that they climb the walls because to accept that fact may mean that we have to suffer for Our Lord.

The FSSP & the opus dei maifa of Voris & Father Nicholson & others are in the same camp. It was Fr. Wolfe’s FSSP public sermon that attacked the remnant, Louie and others Catholics calling what they do “spiritual porn”.

Then it was agent of Satan Michael Voris who picked up this sermon publicly and attacked Catholics with it. Let us remember that it was a FSSP Priest who publicly welcomed Father Paul Nicholson into his Church to speak (the video is on You tube) . Father Paul Nicholson is the demonic cleric who went on to hiss at the casket of Father Gruner not two hours after his death on line and was obsessed with the issue for weeks after.

The FSSP is under the standard of Satan objectively. That is a fact. Voris and the FSSP are two peas in a pod. I stand by my words. They are true. I don’t care what the opus dei maifa says or does. The SSPX is right about the new mass.

Indignus famulusSeptember 1, 2015

Causing you aggravation was not our intention, Louie, especially right now with all you’re going through work-wise. Neither was SELF-defense, as what we found most shocking in your latest N.O. posts was not potentially harmful to us, but to those Catholics who are less secure than we are in their convictions about how to please Our Lord by continuing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holydays, with all that is going on in the Church right now. What lit that defensive fire in us, was the same thing we believe motivates you– we love Our Lord, and Holy Mother Church and feel it’s important to defend them and the people who want to come to them, against error, for the sake of all souls.
__
These latest posts of yours on the N.O seemed to cross a line you’ve never crossed on the blog before, and that hit us like Luther’s nailing of his theses to the Church door–only (as you said) you added a reminder that nobody needs to agree with you. If Luther had done that, would it really have made any difference other than for him to take less responsibility personally for the outcome? The point being that the matters under discussion are grave.
__
You’ve declared things in these posts that are directly contrary to what the Paul VI promulgated and taught about the N.O:
you wrote that
–the N.O. was not a gift from Holy Mother Church,
(Paul VI said it came directly from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit..)
“– that “One with a truly Catholic sense can hardly deny that such a rite is indeed an offense against God.”
“–that This rite would be an offense against God if it only effectively reassures Protestants in their errors, but the Novus Ordo doesn’t stop there; it also leads Catholics to adopt those errors as well! Obviously, such a rite, which has the effect of leading souls away from the fullness of faith and the one true Church, is a grave offense against the Lord.”
and that
“Only the truly ignorant (the ubiquitous presence of whom is understandable given the degree to which our churchmen have misled us over these past 50 years) or the deliberately evil..will deny that this is precisely the case with the Novus Ordo; not due to deviations from the missal (otherwise called liturgical abuse), but because the rite itself is crafted in such way as to have precisely the effect outlined above.”
___
The way you stated these things as indiputable facts–which if believed by your readers can easily lead people to stop attending Mass on Sundays–is what makes the presentation itself something that we felt should not be off-limits to criticism about what you were promoting here, and how.
That’s likely why we came across as so defensive despite the disclaimer which you seem to believe should have precluded such things.
And Louie, what concerns us about you personally :
isn’t your claim that the papally promulgated N.O. didn’t come from the Church, a declaration of schism?
Defined as “The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope or to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him. Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated.”
(A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)
___
God Bless you

I.F.,
–
In answer to your comment way at the tope regarding the alleged “retraction” by Card. Ottaviani:
Really, are you serious…?
Why do you take so seriously a dubious “retraction” by a holy blind man with a modernist secretary who most likely appended his signature at the end of the “retraction” and fail to take seriously the document we infallibly know was written by him together with a group of orthodox theologians. EVEN if the “retraction” were true (and there is no solid evidence it is, by any stretch of the imagination, but let’s assume it is for the sake of argument) it would NOT invalidate all the solid points of theological argumentation against the Novus Ordo penned down on the O.I. The validity of the argumentation of the critique does not fall even if Card. Ottaviani or anyone else happened to “retract” its arguments.
So please – let’s be honest here.
First off, we are all aware (or we should be) of the amount of forgeries and dubious or apocryphal quotes roaming through the internet. I’m sure you’re aware, for example, of the “letter” allegedly written on a typewriter (lol) by Sr Lucy (I think it was the early ’90s) claiming that the consecration of the world performed by JP2 in the 80s satisfied heaven’s request for the consecration of Russia.
The line of argumentation provide by these Ottaviani “retraction” folks is very similar to those who impose the “Party Line” on the Fatima consecration: “it doesn’t really matter what JP2 did or didn’t say during the consecrations but, hey SEE, we’ve got PROOF now from a TYPEWRITTEN LETTER that Sr Lucy CLAIMS the consecration performed by the Holy Father fulfills Heaven’s desires!!”
Secondly – you can’t expect anyone to take seriously a claim of a “retraction” posted on fisheaters by dubious sources which was then possibly repeated ad nauseam on other sites to support such a ludicrous contention.
Thirdly – As I’ve mentioned, the arguments on the O.I. rest entirely on their own, regardless what anyone else may have said afterwards (and we are all fallible human beings after all).

Yes, the objective truths of what is known as the Ottaviani Intervention” stand. Truth cannot change.

As for the later letter attributed by some to the Cardinal, one would need the context and full letter to properly assess its import. And the sentences on the goodness of the true Rites of the Church appears, in its terms, not to describe the NOM.

In Hoc:
Quoting from the link we posted “How would you feel if someone in the public media accused you of misrepresenting a document to a blind man and tricking him into signing it. This is a shocking accusation and yet people say these things and repeat these things as if it is an accusation of almost inconsequential weight. They accuse another man with all the carelessness as if they were swatting a fly.”
— We entered in the Forum under Sacred Liturgy; Ottaviani Retraction, a condensed version of the fisheaters comments with a link. We’ve searched for info on his “retraction”, and this is the best we’ve come across, so far, which strives to present facts. You can accept or dismiss as you want. We just offer it for consideration.

There’s very little between what Mr Verrechio said (which is true) and what, I think, Indignus Famulus is saying – when one keeps to the objective. It’s best to keep to the objective, and objectively-defined terms – to avoid misunderstandings, or straying into the subjective. I believe we, here, are sincere and of goodwill and committed to the unadulterated One True Faith, and Natural Moral Law. We seek to overcome any non-wilful ignorance, or any other impediments to the truth. Thanks be to God that we have this forum (and others) to gather as an isolated remnant, and edify, inform, support and console each other, in our efforts to serve God’s Holy Will – thank you, again. We are brothers and sisters in Christ – in a war zone! Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . . (Can’t say that prayer, often enough!)

Here’s a video by Michael Matt that speaks directly to the issue we’ve been discussing:
–https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVPaBwzikZw&feature=youtu.be
–
To wit: stop the infighting and get moving forward to stop the revolution. The time we waste blasting away at those who speak and act in a way we think is wrong could be better spent in seeking the common good. Yes, there are horrors to be found in the N.O. but how do we expect to lead anyone to Tradition when they read some of our comments? I’m not letting myself off the hook either. Some of my comments have not been such that anyone new to this site would be led onward from the quagmire of the N.O. to Tradition – the Mass and the life.
–
I’ve said this before but in my opinion it bears repeating: build, stop tearing down. Holy Mother Church is collapsing around our ears – what do we offer while we are in a holding pattern?
–
Think of the Arian Crisis. What did those Catholics do who were deprived of their Churches, let alone their Masses? They Kept The Faith, until the Church righted herself again. They missed Mass on Sunday but they Kept the Faith.
–
Just like the Japanese. They were stripped of all outer manifestations of the Church – no priests, no buildings, no books, no support – hey – they missed Mass on Sunday. But for hundreds of years they Kept The Faith.
–
Like the English families who were deprived of Holy Mass. Did they attend the N.O. of their day. They did not, at the risk of huge fines, being ostracized by their friends, losing all status in their communities, etc. Remember that when the priests came into England to serve these faithful they were not able to say Mass in any one community every Sunday. So the faithful hunkered down, attending Mass when it was offered, and Kept The Faith.
–
We are so spoiled it’s not even funny. Here we are able to argue about the minute details of this Mass or that, this Society or that, this priest or that. It’s all going to be swept away! What will we be left with?
–
When Jesus comes again will He find faith on the earth?

Barbara,
Your views are unprincipled and lack a connection to reality. When you say “stop the infighting” this shows you do not understand the doctrines that are in question. You also show that you do not have a proper understanding of what the Church is. You also do not have a proper understanding on what it means to be Catholic.

The Michael Matt video is unprincipled hippie pseudo trad nonsense. This kumbaya trash between the FSSP and SSPX is an illusion. They are not the same. They do not agree on doctrine and principle. The SSPX right the FSSP is wrong. That is an objective fact.

I am glad Mr. Matt and three FSSP Priests got all warn and fuzzy at a screening of the Archbishop Lefebvre documentary that does not change the reality of the FSSP Constitutions, the Ecclesia Dei document, John Paul II, Motu Proprio, 2 July 1988. and the statement from the Superior General of the Fraternity of St. Peter, Fr. Bisig in 2000 about the new mass and Holy Thursday then what followed as all known and are all unacceptable.

These are not just “old talking points” as Mr. Matt suggests. These documents still stand and the FSSP has not moved one inch on it’s errors.

The SSPX stands for: 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre

The FSSP stands for: Fssp constitutions, the Ecclesia Dei document, John Paul II, Motu Proprio, 2 July 1988 (which contains lies about the Archbishop and a stunning admission by John Paul II that Vatican II contains “new” doctrine and a heretical notion of Tradition) and the FSSP accepts this document and they are in fact bound to it in their constitution which says
c) Aim of the Fraternity
” 8. The particular aim of the Fraternity of Saint Peter is to achieve this objective through the faithful observance of the “liturgical and spiritual traditions” according to the dispositions of the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, which is at the origin of its foundation.”

No matter what the FSSP supporters say they are bound “according to the dispositions of the Motu proprio” Shame on the FSSP!

Michael Matt is deceiving people with his video. The official stand of the SSPX is still the 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre. That means these are not “old talking points” these are facts that establish a reality between the FSSP and the SSPX. Michael Matt & Barbara come back to reality.

For my part, what saved me from bitterness and frustration is the apparition at Akita, Japan. I’m a week person that needs some direction from Church approved apparitions. Without that, I would be done.

At Akita, as you surely already know, Our Lady appeared to a “Novus Ordo” nun who went to “Novus Ordo” masses. Our lady didn’t tell the nun to stop attending the NO mass. Nor did she told her to keep away from the new Breviary … No, instead she told her :

“Without attaching to much attention to the ***form***, be faithful and fervent in prayer to console the Master.”

Louie already responded my comment on another post where I mentioned that argument about Akita. I continue to respectfully disagree with him about this, though I continue to have great admiration for him. That doesn’t changed that he seems to be really well intentioned. But the point is : Our Lady asked the sister to continue being obedient to her superiors, that is : her Novus Ordo Bishop and the superior of the Novus Ordo monastery. The fact that Our Lady didn’t even mentioned stopping attending the Novus Ordo mass is enough for me. Instead, what she said to the sister encouraged her to continue attending it. I think Louie is missing something here.

Also, being present on sundays at an Novus Ordo mass to fullfill the 3rd commandment doesn’t mean I approve the way the liturgy is done by father Clown. Even the SPPX are saying we could attend a Novus Ordo mass wedding if we do not participate in an external way (except being present at the back of the Church). If it was an intrinsic evil to attend an Novus Ordo mass, the SPPX would not have this stance about wedding NO masses.

The form of the liturgy and prayer is important, but we need to heed to Our Lady’s words, and I think you’re doing it, Barbara. I know your comment was not about Novus Ordo vs TLM, but there’s a logical connection with the SSPX vs FSSP debate. It’s about the same error which harm our unity with God first, and then with others. God Bless you Barbara.

*** I’m thrilled about the news of the SPPX having faculties (according to the Holy Father) to hear confessions in the year of “Mercy”. Thank God ! I hope the SSPX will be soon integrated “as is” (without so called VII errors) in the Church . We desperately need them.

Permit me to get back to the said Gospel Mat.6:24-33 reading quoted from Louie’s present day post from last Sunday’s Mass. I was made aware that this reading is only read once every three years in the NO and it is an option to read it even at that.
I love this reading for one particular reason and that is because of its “Now if God so clothe the grass of the feild, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more you, O ye of little faith! Be not solicitous therefor saying: What shall we eat, or drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? for after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all thse things. Seek ye therfor first the Kingdom of God, and His justice;and all thse things shall be added to you.”
pleas indulge me alittle as I am going to link this reading to my pet topic, the primary purpose of marriage and to those who abuse the marital act and those who fear conception and continue to contracept and promote NFP by the separation of the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory from the secondary and subordinate purpose of unity of the couple through the exclusive recourse to the infertile period during relations in order to avoid having children while separating conception from the effects of unity . I will , however, also point out how the Epistle Gal.5:16-24 in this same Sunday’s readings shows the goal and the suppression within the NO of any negative theology as Father Cekada points out in his “Work od Human Hands”. No wonder this Gospel reading is only said once every three years and is optional to boot.
“Brethren: Walk in the spirit, and you shall not fufill the lusts of the flesh: for the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another; so you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleaness, immodesty, luxury, idlotry, wichcrafts, enmities, contention, emulations, envies, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I fortell you, as I have fortold you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the Kingdom Od God. But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continence, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with the vices of concupiscences.”

I meant to say that the Epistle from this Sunday’s Mass is what I was told was said as an option once every three tears in the NO. Not sure if this applied to the Gospel redaing of “O ye of little faith.”
Sorry also for not spacing my paragraphs in a hard to read manner. I will try to be more careful next time.

Anastasia, that’s one of the things that is odd about the N.O. Trying to gobble down the whole of Scripture over three years just does not give anyone a deeper understanding.
–
There is usually a reading from the Old Testament, then something from “Paul,” (and I’m presuming St. Paul is who they make reference to), then a reading from “The Word” which I guess is the New Testament….then Father Flapdoodle will give a ‘homily’ about what he did on his vacation, even at a daily Mass! What I love about the Mass of the Ages, is that we get the same reading on the same day, year after year. One has the chance to grow in understanding, and love, for the passages that were specially chosen for that day.
–
I’m glad you brought up your ‘pet’ peeve too. Marriage is falling apart now because of the assaults of the evil one – through divorce, contraception, abortion, sexual perversion sold as normality – and Catholics are right in the middle of it. I think Satan hits us where we are weakest – the flesh.

Also, Fr Hesse, theologian and canon lawyer, maintained that Paul VI did not promulgate the NOM, rather just issued a letter saying it was in place. According to Fr Hesse, the criteria for promulgation were not fulfilled by the Pope.